2009-20RESOLUTION NO. PC 2009-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ENCINITAS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
.PROPOSED BATIQUITOS BLUFFS SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
(CASE NO. 05-157 TM/MUP/DR/CDP/EIA, APN 216-122-25 & -38)
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the
Batiquitos Bluffs subdivision (Case No. 05-157 TM/MUP/DR/CDP/EIA) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality.Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated for
public and agency comments for 30 days commencing September 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a 45-day public and agency review and comment period of the
completed Draft EIR was conducted from September 10, 2007 to October 25, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas has reviewed and
considered the information in the Final EIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Findings reflect the
Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis as the Lead Agency and that
they have been completed in compliance with CEQA as presented in this resolution as
follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby certifies
the Final EIR and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program presented as
follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT "B"
PBD\KK\g:\Resolutions\rpc05-157.FEIR.2009-20 I
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2009 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Felker, Shannon, Steyaert, Van Slyke
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Chapo
ABSTAIN`. None
ATTEST:
atrick Murphy
Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time
limits for legal challenges.
PBD\KK\g:\Resolutions\rpc05-157.FEIR.2009-20 2
Planning Commission of the
City of Encinitas
Resolution No. PC 2009-20
Attachment "A"
Case No. 05-157 TM/MUP/DR/CDP/EIA
Batiquitos Bluffs
Tentative Tract Map No. 05-157
Major Use Permit No. 05-157
Design Review Permit No. 05-157
Coastal Development Permit No. 05-157
State Clearinghouse No. 2006091084
CEQA Findings of Fact
Batiquitos Bluffs
CG= (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This statement of findings and overriding considerations addresses . the environmental effects
associated with the Batiquitos Bluffs project (hereafter "the project"), located in the northern portion
of the City of Encinitas. This statement is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") under Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Sections 15091
and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Cal. Code Regs. §§15000, et seq. The potentially
significant effects of the project were identified in both the Draft Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") and are identified in the Final EIR. It should be noted that these findings address the
environmental effects of Alternative 2 (20-Foot Access Alternative) analyzed in Section 7.3.2 of the
EIR.
Public Resource Code §21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the Lead
Agency prepare written finding for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. The City of Encinitas (hereafter "the City") is the Lead Agency
responsible for preparation of the EIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Section
15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that:
"(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written finding for each of those
significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. The possible findings are.
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final
EIR."
In accordance with Public Resource Code §21081 and §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, whenever
significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision-making agency
is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be
considered "acceptable."
The Final EIR for the project identifies potentially significant effects that could result from project
implementation. However, the City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of
July 23, 2008 Page 1
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
the project approval will reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less than significant levels.
Those impacts which are not reduced to less than significant levels are identified and overridden due
to specific project benefits (see Section 6.0, Statement of Overriding Considerations, below). As
required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the project, included within the Final EIR. The City finds that the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these
findings, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for
the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of
the project.
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; the City adopts these finding as part of its
certification of the Final EIR for the project. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the Public
Resources Code, the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as
the lead agency for the project.
1.2 Project Overview
1.2.1 Project Location and Setting
The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Encinitas, California, immediately
adjacent to the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project site is located within the community of
Leucadia (one of five unique communities of the City of Encinitas), and abuts the southern edge of
La Costa Avenue, approximately 0.25-mile west of El Camino Real. Nearby cities include: the City
of Carlsbad to the north, unincorporated land within the County of San Diego to the east, and the
City of Solana Beach to the south. The Pacific Ocean is located along the western edge of the City of
Encinitas.
The 47.81-acre project site is located in the southeastern corner of the southwestern quarter of
Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West; San Bernardino Base and Meridian. Regional access
to the project site is provided via the La Costa Avenue exit from Interstate 5 (I-5), located
approximately 1.5 miles west of the site. Direct access to the site is available via La Costa Avenue.
1.2.2 Project Description
The project proposed for approval by the City in these Findings is the Batiquitos Bluffs project,
which consists of the following City discretionary actions:
Tentative Map (TM) No. 05-157 proposes to subdivide the 47.81-gross acre property into
19 single-family residential lots on 6.79 net acres, 2 open space lots on 37.48 acres, and
private streets on the remaining 2.27 acres of the site. The remaining 1.27 acres of the
site would be utilized for easements. and public rights-of-way. Proposed residential lots
would range in size from 13,400 to 21,700 net square feet in size. The TM also includes
a preliminary grading plan that proposes to grade approximately 9.86 acres (21%) of the
project site, with a cut and fill volume of approximately 19,000 cubic yards. Vehicular
access to the site would be provided via a right-turn in/out only access from La Costa
Avenue.
July 23, 2008 Page 2
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
Major Use Permit (MUP No. 05-157 is required pursuant to Section 30.16.020.A.1 of
the Encinitas Municipal Code (EMC) in order to allow for Lot Area Averaging. The lot
sizes proposed by TM 05-157 would not be consistent with the underlying zoning
designation of the site for Rural Residential 1 (RR-1), which requires a Minimum Net
Area of 1.0 acre per residential lot. Approval of MUP No. 05-157 would allow lot sizes
ranging from 13,400 to 21,700 net square feet in size, as proposed by TM No. 05-157, in
exchange for the conservation of sensitive coastal bluffs and wetlands on 37.4 acres of
the site as permanent open space.
Design Review Permit (DR) No. 05-157 is required pursuant to EMC Chapter 23.08 in
order to demonstrate project consistency with the City's Design Review Guidelines as
well as other regulations regarding the physical development of the City, including the
certified Local Coastal Program. As part of the project, a Landscape Concept/Site Plan
has been prepared to address the requirements of EMC Chapters 23.08 and 30.34.030B.
The Landscape Concept/Site Plan addresses landscaping, brush management, and site
design.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 05-157 is required pursuant to EMC Chapter
30.80 because the proposed project site is located within the Coastal Zone of the City of
Encinitas. The CDP is required to demonstrate that the proposed project would be
consistent with the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP) as described in the
General Plan.
1.2.3 Project Objectives
The following is a list of objectives sought by the proposed project:
■ Establish a development program for the 47.81-acre site that provides an appropriate
balance of residential and open space land uses in a manner that is consistent with the
City of Encinitas General Plan's land use designation of "Rural Residential (RR-1)."
■ Provide for the permanent conservation of sensitive environmental resources on the site,
including areas containing steep slopes and sensitive biological resources, by clustering
the proposed residential land uses on the portions of the site where impacts to these
resources would be minimized.
■ Establish a development plan for the 47.81-acre site which complies with the
requirements of the City of Encinitas Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP)
Subarea Plan.
■ Provide plans for site design and landscaping that are consistent with the requirements of
the City of Encinitas Design Review Guidelines and that create an attractive, resident-
friendly neighborhood that is compatible with the surrounding community.
■ Plan and construct capital improvements for water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities, as
appropriate, to provide adequate services to the project.
■ Provide for circulation improvements as necessary to ensure the safe and efficient
movement of vehicles to and from the project site.
July 23, 2008 Page 3
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
1.3 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
To determine the environmental topics to be addressed in the EIR, the City prepared a Notice of
Preparation ("NOP") and an Initial Study, and circulated the NOP/Initial Study to all Responsible and
Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested public agencies, organizations, community groups and
individuals in order to receive input on the scope of the proposed project. The NOP and Initial Study
were released for public review on September 15, 2006. Based on the NOP/IS scoping process, the
EIR addressed the following topics:
■ aesthetics ■ air quality ■ biological resources
■ cultural resources ■ geology/soils ■ hazards & hazardous materials
■ hydrology/water quality ■ land use/planning ■ noise
Based on the NOP/IS scoping process, potential impacts relating to agricultural resources, energy and
mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and
utilities/service systems were determined to be not significant and, therefore, were not discussed in
detail in the EIR.
1.4 Environmental Impact Report
The City prepared the EIR in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is a full-
disclosure informational document which informs public agency decision-makers and the public of
the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize significant effects are
identified in the EIR and reasonable alternatives to the project are evaluated.
The Draft EIR was made available to the public for review and comment for a 45-day period. The
review and comment period began on September 12, 2007, and ended on October 26, 2007. Copies
of the Draft EIR were available for public review at the following locations: (a) City of Encinitas
Planning and Building Department, 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California; and (b) on the
City's website, http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us.
All comment letters received in response to the Draft EIR were reviewed and are included in the
Final EIR, along with written responses to each of the comments. In accordance with §15132 of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR for the project consists of the Draft EIR; comments received on the
Draft EIR; a list of the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
written responses to significant environmental issues raised during the public review and comment
period and related supporting materials; and other information contained in the administrative record.
1.4.1 Decision Not to Recirculate the Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to Section 15088.5(e) of the_ State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that
the following facts are supportive of a determination not to recirculate the 'Environmental Impact
Report for public review:
1) No significant new information has been added to the EIR since public review of the
draft EIR pursuant to Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specifically:
July 23, 2008 Page 4
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
a) There has been no new significant environmental impacts resulting from the project
or from a new mitigation measure beyond that which was disclosed in the public
review draft of the EIR;
b) The Final EIR does not identify any substantial increases in the severity of impacts
that were identified and disclosed in the public review draft EIR;
c) There are no feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures available which are
considerably different from those that are evaluated in the EIR document which
would serve to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the identified significant impacts
associated with the proposed project; and
d) The Planning Commission finds that the public review draft EIR was fundamentally
and basically adequate, and that the analysis contained therein, was sufficient to allow
for meaningful public review and comment.
July 23, 2008 Page 5
- Batiquitos Bluffs
_ (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
2.0 Finding on Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the
Project
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding
considerations to be issued by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, if the Batiquitos Bluffs project is approved. Based on the analysis contained in, the EIR,
the following impacts have been determined to fall within this "significant unavoidable impact"
category.
2.1 Land Use/Planning
2.1.1 Description of Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to 0.17-acre of on-site
wetlands (southern willow scrub). These impacts would result from the need to construct a soft-
bottomed culvert and road crossing to gain access to the site from La Costa Avenue. This anticipated
impact represents a direct conflict with the General Plan Resource Element Policies 10.6 and 10.9,
which prohibit the filling of Coastal Zone wetlands in association with private development projects.
2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 4.2-A.1 and 4.2-13.1 through 4.2-13.17 have been identified to minimize the
project's direct and indirect impacts to biological resources due to the encroachment into on-site
wetland habitat, specifically southern willow scrub. However, no feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce the project's conflict with the General Plan Resource Management Element to a
level below significance. This is because the construction of any crossings into the site from La
Costa Avenue would result in direct impacts to wetlands. Although impacts to wetlands could be
reduced (as proposed by several alternatives contained within Chapter 7.0 of the EIR), any impacts to
wetland resources would remain in conflict with the General Plan Resource Element Policies 10.6
and 10.9.
2.1.3 Finding
Pursuant to Section 21081(x)(3) of the Public Resources Code, the Planning Commission finds that
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would reduce the land use/planning impacts of the project
to below a level of significance.
2.1.4 Rationale for Finding
Implementation of the project would result in impacts to on-site wetland habitat due to the
construction of an access road into the project site from La Costa Avenue. As discussed in Response
to Comment F-11 of the Final EIR, there are no other existing roads or easements that could provide
feasible access to the project site. The project applicant cannot secure access to the site from adjacent
property owners. Therefore, a roadway connection to La Costa Avenue would be required to provide
access to the site under any alternative development scenario. As discussed in EIR Section 7.0,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, no development alternative would avoid the policy conflict
July 23, 2008 Page 6
_ Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
with General Plan Resource Management Element Policies 10.6 and 10.9. The No Development
Alternative (Alternative 1) would avoid the significant policy conflict, however, this alternative is
determined to be infeasible because it would not fulfill any objective of the project. In addition,
Section 7.2.1 of the EIR indicates that there are no alternative sites that were identified as reasonable
alternatives under the provisions of CEQA. As indicated in Section 4.1 (page 4-30) of the EIR, there
are no mitigation measures for the proposed project that would eliminate the significant policy
conflict to below of level of significance.
July 23, 2008 Page 7
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
3.0 Findings on Significant but Mitigated Impacts
This section identifies significant adyerse impacts of the project that require findings to be made
under Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The
Planning Commission finds that, based on the information in the Final EIR and substantial evidence
in the record, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified
significant impacts to less than significant levels.
3.1 Biological Resources
3.1.1 Sensitive Habitats
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effects
implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to 0.05 acre of southern
willow scrub (for the 20-Foot Access Project Alternative), 0.18 acre of coyote brush scrub, 6.44 acre
of disturbed coyote brush scrub, 2.92 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.07 acre of disturbed coastal sage
scrub, 0.11 acre of southern maritime chaparral, 0.27 acre of southern.mixed chaparral, 0.40 acre of
scrub oak chaparral, and 1.20 acres of annual non-native grassland.
Indirect impacts to on-site vegetation communities due to trampling by humans traveling off-trail,
invasion by exotic plants and animals, lighting, exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion, and hydrological changes (e.g.,
surface and groundwater level and quality).
B. Mitigation Measures
Direct Impacts
4.2-A.1 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to 0.05-acre of southern
willow scrub shall be mitigated at a 7:1 ratio, including enhancement of southern willow
scrub at a 1.4:1 ratio and creation of southern willow scrub at a 5.61:1 ratio on-site. The
location of the mitigation areas will be on-site, within and adjacent to Encinitas Creek
shall be as specified in the Draft Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, or as
otherwise required by a final wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan which shall be
reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. On-site mitigation areas shall total
not less than 0.35 acres. (This mitigation measures applies to the 20-Foot Access Project
Alternative.)
4.2-A.2 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to 0.18-acre of coyote brush
scrub, 6.44-acres of disturbed coyote brush scrub, 2.92 acres of coastal sage scrub, and
0.07-acre of disturbed coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio on-site. Of the
required 19.22 acres mitigation requirement, only 12.89 acres of coastal sage scrub
habitat are available on-site. The resulting 6.33 acre deficit will be mitigated by
preserving a higher tier of habitat and utilizing 6.33 acres of southern maritime chaparral
as on-site mitigation credit.
4.2-A.3 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to 0.11-acre of southern
maritime chaparral shall be mitigated through on-site preservation of southern maritime
July 23, 2008 Page 8
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
chaparral at a 3:1 ratio on-site, resulting in a total on-site mitigation requirement of 0.33 -
acre..
4.2-A.4 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to 0.27-acre of southern
mixed chaparral and 0.40-acre of scrub oak chaparral shall be mitigated through on-site
preservation of these habitat types at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in a total on-site mitigation
requirement of 0.27-acre of southern mixed chaparral and 0.40-acre of scrub oak
chaparral.
4.2-A.5 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to 1.20 acres of annual non-
native grassland shall be mitigated through on-site preservation of annual (non-native)
grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio, resulting in a total on-site mitigation requirement of 0.60 acre.
Of the required 0.60-acre mitigation requirement, only 0.50-acre of non-native grassland
habitat is available on-site. The resulting 0.10-acre deficit will be. made up by preserving
0.10-acre of southern maritime chaparral, a higher-tier habitat type, as on-site mitigation
credit.
Indirect Impacts
4.2-B.1 Prior to the issuance of a Final Map for the project, a Final Drainage Study shall be
submitted to the Planning and Building and Engineering Services Departments for review
and approval. The Final Drainage Study shall adhere to the City's Grading, Erosion, and
Sediment. Control Ordinance and Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual for
New Development and Redevelopment.
4.2-B.2 Final grading plans for the site shall clearly depict the water quality BMPs proposed to
prevent the release of chemical and natural elements into on-site and adjacent open space
preserve areas. Water quality BMPs that shall be depicted on final grading plans are
specified in the project's water quality management plan (refer to Appendix L to this
EIR).
4.2-B.3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Planning and Building Department shall
review street improvement plans to ensure that outdoor lighting is focused and directed to
the specific location (e.g., roads, walkways), shielded to avoid the production of glare,
and that up-light and light spill have been minimized. This review also shall ensure that
fixtures are located, aimed, or shielded to minimize stray light on on- or off-site open
space preserve areas, and that light design consists of down-cast, low glare, full-cutoff
shields to minimize light and glare on surrounding open space areas.
4.2-B.4 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, a provision shall be established in the
project Homeowner Association CC&Rs to regulate the use of outdoor lighting. The
provision in the CC&Rs shall require that fixtures are located, aimed, or shielded to
minimize stray light affecting on- or off-site open space preserve areas, and shall further
require that lighting design consists of down-cast, low glare, full-cutoff shields to
minimize light and glare on surrounding open space areas.
4.2-B.5 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the following measures shall be
included on the project's grading and building plans:
A. Project construction and brush clearing activities within 500 feet of on- and off-site
coastal sage scrub or coyote bush scrub shall occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding
July 23, 2008 Page 9
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
season (March 1 to August 31); project construction and brush clearing activities within
500 feet of on- and off-site riparian habitat shall occur outside of the least Bell's vireo
and southwestern willow flycatcher breeding seasons (March 15 to September 15); and
project construction and brush clearing activities within 500 feet of raptor habitat (e.g.,
eucalyptus woodland) shall occur outside the raptor breeding season (January 1 to August
31), unless a qualified biologist demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies
and Encinitas Planning and Building Department that all nesting is complete (as specified
below in 4.2-13.5.13).
B. If project construction or brush clearing activities are necessary within 500 feet of on-
and off-site coastal sage scrub or coyote bush scrub during the gnatcatcher breeding
season (March 1 to August 31), or within 500 feet of on- and off-site riparian habitat
during the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher breeding seasons (March
15 to September 15), or within 500 feet of eucalyptus woodland during the raptor
breeding season (January 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-
construction surveys in the habitat to determine the location of any active bird nests in the
area, including raptors and ground nesting birds. The survey should begin not more than
seven days prior to the beginning of construction or brush clearing activities. The
Wildlife Agencies shall be notified if any nesting birds are found. During construction,
no activity shall occur within 300 feet of active nesting territories (500 feet for raptors or
listed species), unless noise attenuation measures are implemented to minimize the noise
and disturbance.to those adjacent birds. Exceptions to this measure includes cases where
surveys confirm that adjacent habitat is not occupied or where noise studies confirm that
construction noise levels are below 60 dBA hourly Leq along the edge of adjacent
habitat. If construction activities are not completed prior to the breeding season and
noise levels exceed this threshold, noise barriers shall be erected to reduce noise impacts
to occupied. habitat to below 60 dBA hourly Leq and/or the culpable activities shall be
suspended.
C. A monitoring biologist, approved by the Wildlife Agencies and Encinitas Planning
and Building Department, shall be on-site during project grading, building construction
and brush clearing activities within 500 feet of on- and off-site coastal sage scrub coyote
bush scrub, and riparian habitat to ensure compliance with all conservation measures.
The biologist must be knowledgeable of gnatcatcher, Least Bell's vireo, and
Southwestern willow flycatcher biology and ecology. The applicant shall submit the
biologist's name, address, telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the
Wildlife Agencies and Encinitas. Planning and Building Department at least seven days
prior to initiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the following duties:
a. Perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on separate days, to determine the
presence of gnatcatcher, vireo, or flycatcher, nest building activities, egg incubation
activities, or brood rearing activities in or within 500 feet of project construction
areas or brush clearing activities proposed during or outside the gnatcatcher, vireo,
and flycatcher breeding seasons. The surveys will begin a maximum of seven days
prior to vegetation clearing/grubbing or project construction and one survey will be
conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If any sensitive bird
species are found within the project footprint, the biologist will direct construction
personnel to begin vegetation clearing in an area away from the sensitive species. In
July 23, 2008 Page 10
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
addition, the biologist will walk ahead of clearing/grubbing equipment to flush birds
towards areas of coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat to be avoided. It will be the
responsibility of the biologist to ensure that gnatcatchers, vireos, and flycatchers will
not be injured or killed by vegetation clearing/grubbing. The biologist will also
record the number and location of gnatcatchers, vireos, and flycatchers disturbed by
vegetation clearing/grubbing. The applicant will notify the USFWS at least seven
days prior to vegetation clearing/grading to allow the service to coordinate with the
biologist on bird flushing activities.
b. Perform a minimum of three surveys, on separate days, to determine the presence of
gnatcatchers in the project impact footprint outside the gnatcatcher breeding season.
Surveys will begin a maximum of seven days prior to performing vegetation
clearing/grubbing and one survey will be conducted immediately prior to the
initiation of remaining work. If any gnatcatchers are found within the project impact
footprint, the biologist vegetation clearing/grubbing in an area away from the
gnatcatchers. In addition, the biologist will walk ahead of clearing/grubbing
equipment to flush birds towards areas of coastal sage scrub to be avoided. It will be
the responsibility of the biologist to ensure that gnatcatchers will not be injured or
killed by vegetation clearing/grubbing. The biologist will also record the number and
location of gnatcatchers disturbed by vegetation clearing/grubbing. The applicant
shall notify the Wildlife Agencies the Encinitas Planning and Building Department at
least seven days prior to vegetation clearing/grubbing to allow the Wildlife Agencies
and the Planning and Building Department to coordinate with the biologist on bird
flushing activities.
c. If a gnatcatcher, vireo, or flycatcher nest is found in or within 500 feet of project
construction, the biologist will postpone work within 500 feet of the nest and submit
the following to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval: 1) a noise
attenuation plan that includes noise barriers erected to reduce noise impacts to
occupied habitat to below 60 dBA hourly Leq and/or suspension of culpable activities
to avoid/ minimize impacts to nesting birds; and 2) a nest monitoring program.
Subsequent to wildlife agency approval of the noise attenuation plan and. nest
monitoring program, work may be initiated subject to implementation of the
approved plan/program. Nest success or failure will be established by regular and
frequent trips to the site, as determined by the biologist and through a schedule
approved by the Wildlife Agencies. The biologist will determine whether bird
activity is being disrupted. If the biologist determines that bird activity is being
disrupted, the applicant will stop work and coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to
review the avoidance/minimization approach. Coordination between the applicant
and Wildlife Agencies to review the avoidance/minimization approach will occur
within 48 hours. Upon agreement as to the necessary revisions to the avoidance/
minimization approach, work may resume subject to the revisions and continued
nesting monitoring. Additional surveys will be done once a week during project
construction in the breeding season. These additional surveys may be suspended as
approved by the Wildlife Agencies. The applicant will notify the Wildlife Agencies
at least seven days prior to the initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of located
any sensitive bird species. Nest monitoring will continue until fledglings have
July 23, 2008 Page 1 1
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 057157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
dispersed or the nest has been determined to be a failure, as approved by the Wildlife
Agencies;
d. Be on-site during all project construction within 500 feet of gnatcatcher, vireo, and
flycatcher habitat to be avoided;
e. Inspect the fencing and erosion control measures within or up-slope of habitat
preservation areas a minimum of once per week and daily during all rain events to
ensure that any breaks in the fence or erosion control measures are repaired
immediately;
f. Periodically monitor the work area to ensure that work activities do not generate
excessive amounts of dust;
g Train all contractors and construction personnel on the biological resources
associated with this project and ensure that training is implemented by construction
personnel. At a minimum, training will include; 1) the purpose for resource
protection; 2) a description of the gnatcatcher, vireo, and flycatcher and their habitats;
3) all conservation measures and practices that should be implemented during project
construction to conserve the gnatcatcher, vireo, and flycatcher, including strictly
limiting activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials ; to the fenced
project footprint to avoid sensitive resource areas in the field (i.e., avoided areas
delineated on maps or on the project site by fencing); 4) the protocol to resolve
conflicts that may arise at any time during the construction process; 5) the general
provisions of the Act, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act, the penalties
associated with violating the Act;
h. Halt work, if necessary, and confer with the Wildlife Agencies to ensure the proper
implementation of species and habitat protection measures. The biologist will report
any violation to the Wildlife Agencies within 24 hours of its occurrence;
i. Submit weekly letter reports (including photographs of impact areas) to the Wildlife
Agencies during clearing of upland and riparian habitat and/or construction within
500 feet of avoided habitat. The weekly reports will document that authorized
impacts were not exceeded, work did not occur within the 500-foot setback except as
approved by the Wildlife Agencies, and general compliance with all conditions. The
reports will also outline the duration of gnatcatcher, vireo, and flycatcher monitoring,
the location of construction activities, the type of construction which occurred,. and
equipment used. These reports will specify numbers, locations, and sex of
gnatcatchers, vireos, and flycatchers .(if present), observed gnatcatcher, vireo, and
flycatcher behavior (especially in relation to construction activities), and remedial
measures employed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to gnatcatchers, vireos,
and flycatchers. Raw field notes should.be available upon request by the Wildlife
Agencies.
j. The biological monitor will submit a final report to the Wildlife Agencies within 60
days of project completion that includes: as-built construction drawings with an
overlay of habitat that was impacted and avoided, photographs of habitat areas that
were to be avoided, and other relevant summary information documenting that
July 23, 2008 Page 12
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance with all
conditions of this EIR was achieved.
D. The applicant shall ensure that the following conditions are implemented during
project construction:
a. Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction
materials to the fenced project footprint;
b. To avoid attracting predators of the gnatcatcher, the project site shall be kept as clean
of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed
containers and regularly removed from the site;.
c. Pets of project personnel shall not.be allowed on the project site;
d. Disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other debris shall not be
allowed in waters of the United States or their banks;
All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other
such activities shall occur in designated areas outside of waters of the United States
within the fenced project impacts limits. These designated areas shall be located in
previously compacted and disturbed areas to the maximum extent practicable in such
a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering waters of the United States, and shall
be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take place within
existing paved areas greater than 100 feet from waters of the United States.
Contractor equipment shall be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired as
necessary. "No-fueling zones" shall be designated on construction plans.
4.2-13.6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, project landscape plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Building Department. The applicant shall ensure that
development landscaping does not include exotic plan species that may be invasive to
native habitats. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A
and B of the California Invasive Plant Council's (Cal-IPC) list of "Exotic Pest Plants of
Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999." This list includes such
species as pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, myoporum, black locust,
capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch
broom, and Spanish broom. A copy of the complete list can be obtained from Cal-IPC's
web site at http://www.cal-ipc.org. In addition, landscaping should not use plants that
require intensive irrigation, fertilizers, or pesticides adjacent to preserve areas and water
runoff from landscaped areas should be directed away from the biological conservation
easement area and contained and/or treated within the development footprint. The
applicant shall submit a draft list of species to be included in the landscaping to -the
Wildlife Agencies for approval at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. The
applicant shall submit to the Wildlife Agencies the final list of species to be included in
the landscaping plan within 30 days of receiving approval of the draft list of species.
4.2-13.7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, building plans shall state that all outdoor
lighting on the project site shall be shielded with full-cutoff light fixtures and directed
away from adjacent native habitat areas. The applicant shall ensure that development
lighting adjacent to all on- or off-site habitat shall be directed away from and/or shielded
July 23, 2008 Page 13
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
so as not to illuminate native habitats. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the
Wildlife Agencies at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. If night work is
necessary, night lighting shall be of the lowest illumination necessary for human safety,
selectively placed, shielded and directed away from natural habitats.
4.2-13.8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the on- and off-site native habitat areas shall be
protected with on-site construction fencing in any areas where it has been determined that.
a noise attenuation barrier is unnecessary. The construction fencing shall be portrayed on
the construction plans to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies and the Planning and
Building Department. The applicant shall submit to the Wildlife Agencies and the
Planning and Building Department for approval, at least 30 days prior to initiating project
impacts, the final plans for initial clearing and grubbing of sensitive habitat and project
construction. These final plans shall include photographs that show the fenced limits of
impact and all areas (including riparian/wetland or coastal sage scrub) to be impacted or
avoided. In addition, the construction plans shall specify that construction fencing shall
be maintained for the entire duration of construction activity until permanent fencing is
installed.
The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limits of project
impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes) to prevent additional
gnatcatcher habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into
adjacent gnatcatcher habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that
does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated
limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied to the
satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies. Any coastal sage scrub (CSS) impacts that occur
shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary construction fencing shall be
removed upon project completion.
4.2-13.9 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall install permanent
protective fencing along any interface with developed areas and/or use other measures
approved by the Wildlife Agencies to deter human and pet entrance into on- or off-site
habitat. Fencing should have no gates and be designed to prevent intrusion by pets,
especially cats. Signage for the biological conservation easement area shall be posted
and maintained at conspicuous locations. Plans for fencing and/or other preventative
measures shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies and Encinitas Planning and
Building Department for approval at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts.
4.2-B.10 Impacts from fugitive dust shall be avoided and minimized through watering and other
appropriate measures.
4.2-B.11 Any planting stock to be brought onto the project site for landscape or habitat
creation/restoration/enhancement shall be first inspected by a qualified pest inspector to
ensure it is free of pest species that could invade natural areas, including but not limited
to, Argentine ants (Iridomyrmex humil), fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) and other insect
pests. Any planting stock found to be infested with such pests shall not be allowed on the
project site or within 300 feet of natural habitats. The stock shall be quarantined, treated,
or disposed of according to best management principals by qualified experts in a manner
that precludes invasions into natural habitats. The applicant shall ensure that all
July 23, 2008 Page 14
Batiquitos Bluffs
_ (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
temporary irrigation will be for the shortest duration possible, and that no permanent
irrigation will be used, for landscape or habitat creation/restoration/ enhancement.
4.2-B.12 Prior to issuance of a Final Map for the project, the applicant shall execute and record a
perpetual biological conservation easement over the sensitive habitat to be
avoided/preserved on-site (including any restoration/ enhancement areas) by the project.
The easement shall be in favor of an agent approved by the Wildlife Agencies. The
Wildlife Agencies shall be named as third-party beneficiaries. The easement shall be
approved by the Wildlife Agencies and the Encinitas Planning and Building Department
prior to its execution and should follow a Wildlife Agency-approved template. There
should be no active trails in the easement areas. The project applicant shall submit a draft
easement to the Wildlife Agencies and the Encinitas Planning and Building Department
for review and approval at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. The project
applicant shall submit a final easement and evidence of its recordation to the Wildlife
Agencies and the Encinitas Planning and Building Department within 60 days of
receiving approval of the draft easement.
4.2-B.13 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a Habitat Management
Plan for Lots "21" and "22" to the Wildlife Agencies and Planning and Building
Department for review and approval. The applicant shall submit a draft of the Habitat
Management Plan to the Wildlife Agencies and the Planning and Building Department at
least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. The plan should identify an appropriate
natural lands management organization (subject to approval of the Wildlife Agencies) to
ensure the conservation of biological resources within Lots "21" and "22" in perpetuity.
The plan shall include the proposed land manager's name, qualifications, business
address and contact information. The plan should outline actions that will be taken to
manage, maintain; and monitor the on-site biological resources. A Property Analysis
Record (PAR) or similar analysis should be used to estimate initial start-up costs and on-
going annual costs of management activities outlined in the plan. A non-wasting
endowment should be established to ensure that the funding is available to implement the
management plan prior to, or concurrent with the initiation of construction. The
approved natural land management organization shall implement the management plan.
The applicant shall submit the final plan and a contract with the approved land manager
to the Wildlife Agencies and the Planning and Building Department within 60 days of
receiving approval from the Wildlife Agencies on the draft plan. In addition, the
applicant shall transfer the funds for the non-wasting endowment to the non-profit
conservation entity identified in the Habitat Management Plan to manage the site within
60 days of receiving approval from the Wildlife Agencies on the draft plan.
4.2-B.14: Prior to the issuance of building permits, a fencing plan shall be prepared and submitted
to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. The fencing plan shall
require the construction of physical barriers as necessary to prevent intrusion of pets and
people into on- and off-site open space preserve areas. Maintenance of fencing not on
individual development lots shall be the responsibility of the HOA.
4.2-B.15: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Planning and Building Department shall
review final landscaping plans for the site to ensure that the proposed landscaping
elements are consistent with the landscaping restriction requirements of the MHCP
July 23, 2008 Page 15
Batiquitos Bluffs
41 (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
Adjacency Guidelines. These requirements include restrictions on the use of non-native
species adjacent to the preserved areas; requirements for restoring weedy areas adjacent
to the preserve; irrigation requirements; and brush management requirements. In
addition, the landscaping restriction requirements of the MHCP Adjacency Guidelines
shall be included within the CC&Rs for the project.
4.2-B.16: The applicant shall develop a resident education program in coordination with the
Planning and Building Department, CDFG, and the USFWS. At least 30 days prior to
initiating project impacts, this program shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning and Building Department and the Wildlife Agencies. The program shall advise
residents of the potential impacts to the listed species and the potential penalties for
taking such species. At a minimum, the program shall provide information pamphlets to
all residents and shall include the following topics: occurrence of the listed and sensitive
species in the area; their general ecology; sensitivity of the species to human activities;
the purpose of the signage and/or fencing between development and the areas within the
conservation easements; how to prevent the spreading of non-native ants and other insect
pests from developed areas into preserved areas; impacts from free-roaming pets
(particularly domestic and feral cats); legal protection afforded these species; penalties '
for violations of Federal and State laws; reporting requirements; and project features
designed to reduce the impacts to these species and promote continued successful
operation of the preserved areas. The applicant shall submit to the City of Encinitas,
USFWS, and CDFG the final program within 60 days of receiving approval of the draft
program.
4.2-B.17: Prior to the issuance of building permits, a measure shall be included on the project's
building plans requiring the use of treated and non-reflective glass to reduce the amount
of indoor light shining out through the windows at dusk and dark in order to minimize the
frequency of avian collisions.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and will reduce the
potential biological resources-related impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public
Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
biological resources-related impacts of the project.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-A.1 through 4.2-A.5 would ensure that direct project
impacts to on-site vegetation communities would be fully mitigated in accordance with the City's
Mitigation Standards for Impacts to Natural Vegetation and Habitat, the MHCP Subarea Plan, and/or
applicable state and federal requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-B.1 through
4.2-B.17 would ensure that significant indirect impacts to vegetation communities would not occur
during construction or long-term operation of the proposed project.
July 23, 2008 Page 16
Batiquitos Bluffs
CQ (TM 05-157; MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
3.1.2 Sensitive Species
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effects
Sensitive Plant Species
Implementation of the proposed project would impact three (3) sensitive plant species, including the
direct loss of approximately 0.40-acre of scrub oak chaparral supporting four Nuttal's scrub oak
individuals, and indirect impacts to 20 Del Mar sand aster individuals and one summer-holly
individual.
The long-term operation of the project would also result in potential indirect impacts to sensitive
plant species due to trampling by humans traveling off-trail, invasion by exotic plants and domestic
animals, lighting, noise, exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
other hazardous materials), soil erosion, and hydrological changes (e.g., surface and groundwater
level and quality).
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to 0.18-acre of coyote brush
scrub, 6.44 acres of disturbed coyote brush scrub, 2.92 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 0.07-acre of
disturbed coastal sage scrub. These habitat types represent habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher, a federally-listed threatened and state species of special concern, and the Lead Agency
finds that impacts to these habitats are regarded as significant.
If construction activities were to' occur during the raptor breeding season (January 1 through August
31), nesting bird species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act could be significantly
impacted, both directly (i.e., grading activities) and indirectly (noise), by construction activities.
The Lead Agency finds that if construction activities were to occur during the avian breeding season
(February 15 through August 31), there is high potential for indirect noise impacts to the coastal
California gnatcatcher within adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat and/or indirect noise impacts to the
yellow-breasted chat within adjacent riparian habitat.
B. Mitigation Measures
Sensitive Plant Species
4.2-C.1 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the following measures shall be
included in the Master Homeowner Association CC&Rs:
A. Hand-thinning shall be required for all brush management activities. Hand-thinning
activities in areas surrounding the Del Mar sand aster shall only occur between May and
September (when the species is most visible based on the blooming status of reference
July 23, 2008 Page 17
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
populations) under the supervision of a qualified biologist. The remainder of the FMZ
shall be hand-thinned between September 1 and February 29 (outside of the avian
breeding season) under the supervision of a qualified biologist.
B. The Master Homeowner Association shall contract with a qualified Biological
Resources Consultant prior to the initiation of any brush clearing activities. The Master
Homeowner Association shall submit the biologist's name, address, telephone number,
and work schedule on the project site to the Encinitas Planning and Building Department
at least seven days prior to initiating brush thinning activities. The monitoring biologist
shall perform the following duties:
a. At least 10 days prior to initiation of brush clearing activities, the monitoring
biologist shall perform a focused survey of the fuel modification area and shall flag
and photograph all Del Mar sand aster individuals and summer-holly individuals
located within the fuel modification . zone. The results of this focused survey,
including photographs, shall be submitted to the Encinitas Planning and Building
Department prior to the initiation of brush clearing activities.
b. The monitoring biologist shall train all landscape contractor personnel to ensure that
brush thinning activities avoid the identified locations of the summer-holly and Del
Mar sand aster individuals.
c. The biological monitor will submit a final report to. the Planning and Building
Department within 30 days of completion of brush management activities. The report
shall include photographs of sensitive plants that were avoided during brush
management activities,. and shall include a statement, signed by the monitoring
biologist, verifying that the required monitoring occurred and that no unauthorized
impacts to the Del Mar sand aster or summer-holly individuals occurred during brush
management activities.
d. The monitoring biologist shall report to the Wildlife Agencies and the Planning and
Building Department within 24 hours if any unauthorized impacts to Del Mar sand
aster or summer-holly individuals result from brush management activities. In such a
case, mitigation for the unauthorized impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with
Wildlife Agency and/or City of Encinitas requirements. The Homeowners'
Association shall be responsible for any necessary restoration efforts that result from
unauthorized impacts to the Del Mar sand aster and/or summer-holly.
4.2-C.2 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak
individuals shall be mitigated through habitat based mitigation (i.e., 0.60 acre of scrub
oak chaparral preserved on-site for 0.40 acre of impact) at an approximately 1.5:1
replacement ratio.
4.2-G.1 Mitigation Measures 4.2-B.1 through 4.2-B.17 shall apply.
July 23, 2008 Page 18
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
Sensitive Wildlife Species
4.2-D.1 Mitigation Measures 4.2-A.2 through 4.2-A.4 shall apply.
4.2-D.2 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, 1.16 acres of disturbed coyote brush
scrub shall be enhanced and approximately 0.21-acre of coastal sage scrub in existing
annual non-native grassland and eucalyptus woodland shall be restored in the northwest
and central portions of the project site.
4.2-D.3 Prior to the issuance of grading or clearing permits, an Upland Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be prepared for the enhancement and restoration of on-site upland
habitat. The Upland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the
Planning and Building Department and the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval at
least 60 days prior to the initiation of project impacts and shall include the following
information and conditions:
a. Topographic based grading, planting and irrigation plans, as well as final
specifications: All upland habitat habitat/restoration/enhancement sites shall be
prepared for planting by decompacting the topsoil in a way that mimics natural
upland habitat top soil to the, maximum extent practicable while maintaining slope
stability. Topsoil and plant materials salvaged from the upland habitat areas to be
impacted shall be transplanted to, and/or used as a seed/cutting source for, the upland
habitat restoration/creation areas to the maximum extent practicable as approved by
the Wildlife Agencies. Planting and irrigation shall not be installed until the Wildlife
Agencies have approved the upland habitat restoration/creation site grading. All
planting shall be installed in a way that mimics natural plant distribution, and not in
rows;
b. Planting palettes (plant species, size and number/acre) and seed mix (plant species
and pounds/acre): The upland plant palette proposed in the draft plans shall include
native species specifically associated with the habitat type(s). Unless otherwise
approved by the Wildlife Agencies, only locally native species (no cultivars) obtained
from as close to the project area as possible shall be used. The source and proof of
local nativeness of all plant material and seed shall be provided;
c. The minimum survival rate for container plant material shall be 80 percent for the
first five years. At the first and second anniversary of plant installation, all dead
plants shall be replaced unless their function has been replaced by natural
recruitment;
d. An implementation schedule that indicates when all upland habitat impacts, as well as
restoration/ enhancement grading, planting and irrigation shall begin and end.
Upland habitat restoration/ enhancement grading, planting and irrigation shall be
completed concurrent with [if the grading occurs during the planting season (i.e., late
fall to early spring)] or during the next planting season after finishing the project-
related grading within the creation/ enhancement area. Any temporal loss of upland
habitat caused by delays in restoration/ enhancement shall be mitigated through
upland habitat preservation/ restoration/enhancement at a 0.5:1 ratio for every six
July 23, 2008 Page 19
CG Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
months of delay (i.e., 1:1 for 12 month delay, 1.5:1 for 18 month delay, etc.). In the
event that the project applicant is wholly or partly prevented from performing
obligations of the final plans (causing temporal losses due to delays) because of
unforeseeable circumstances or causes beyond reasonable control, and without the
fault or negligence of the project applicant, the project applicant shall be excused by
such unforeseeable cause(s);
e. The plan shall include the following five-year success criteria for upland
restoration/enhancement areas: 40-65 percent absolute cover; evidence of natural
recruitment of multiple species; 0 percent cover by Cal-IPC List A and B species; and
no more than 10 percent cover by other exotic/weed species;
f. A qualitative and quantitative vegetation monitoring plan with a map of proposed
sampling locations. Photo points shall be used for qualitative monitoring and
stratified-random sampling shall be used for quantitative monitoring;
g. Contingency measures shall be established in the event of restoration/enhancement
failure;
h. A schedule for annual submission to the Wildlife Agencies of mitigation maintenance
and monitoring reports after the maintenance and monitoring period and no later than
December 1 of each year;
i. A measure to avoid impacts on avian species if maintenance of a coastal sage scrub
restoration/ enhancement areas is necessary between March 1 and August 31. If
maintenance is required for the restoration/enhancement areas between March 1 and
August 31, a biologist permitted by the Wildlife Agencies will survey for
gnatcatchers and other breeding birds within the creation/enhancement area and other
areas susceptible to disturbances by site maintenance. Surveys would consist of three
visits separated by two weeks starting March 1 of each maintenance/monitoring year.
Work would be allowed to continue on the site during the survey period. However, if
gnatcatchers or other nesting birds are found during any of the site visits, the
applicant shall notify and coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to identify measures
to avoid and/or minimize effects to the birds (e.g., nests and an appropriate buffer
will be flagged by the biologist and avoided by the maintenance work); and
J. The applicant shall post a performance bond or letter of credit for grading, planting,
irrigation and 5 years of maintenance and monitoring of upland mitigation (including
20 percent contingency to be added to the total costs). This bond or letter of credit is
to guarantee the successful implementation of the upland mitigation construction,
maintenance, and monitoring. The applicant shall submit a draft bond or letter of
credit with an itemized cost list for approval at least 30 days prior to the initiation of
project impacts. The applicant shall submit the final bond or letter of credit for the
amount approved within 60 days of receiving approval of the draft bond.
4.2-E.1 Mitigation Measure 4.2-13.5 shall apply.
4.2-F.1 Mitigation Measure 4.2-13:5 shall apply.
July 23, 2008 Page 20
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and will reduce the
project's potential biological resources-related impacts on sensitive species to less than significant
levels. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the
Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the project's
potentially significant biological resources-related impacts on sensitive species as identified in the
Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Sensitive Plant Species
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-C.1 and 4.2-C.2 would fully mitigate project impacts to
the Del Mar sand aster, summer-holly, and Nuttal's scrub oak in accordance with the City's
Mitigation Standards for Impacts to Natural Vegetation and Habitat, the MHCP, and other applicable
state and federal requirements. The impact would be mitigated to below a level of significance.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-13.1 through 4.2-13.17 would ensure that significant
indirect impacts would not occur during the long-term operation of the proposed project. The impact
would be mitigated to less than significant.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-D.1 through 4.2-D.3 would include on-site enhancement
and restoration of gnatcatcher-suitable habitats resulting in a contiguous block of 12.0 acres of land
in the northwest and central portions of the property. This would provide adequate habitat for the
gnatcatcher pair observed in the southeast corner of the site, which may be displaced by
development.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-13.5, would require pre-construction surveys for nesting
raptors and sensitive avian species, and would ensure that construction activities do not significantly
impact nesting raptors or avian species on-site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-13.5 would ensure that indirect noise impacts from
construction activities do not significantly impact nesting pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher
and/or nesting pairs of yellow-breasted chat. With incorporation of the required mitigation, impacts
would be reduced to a level below significance.
July 23, 2008 Page 21
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
3.2 Cultural Resources
3.2.1 Historical Resources
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
Construction activities associated with the project have the potential to result in direct impacts to
significant subsurface historic deposits.
B. Mitigation Measures
4.3-A.1 The project applicant shall provide a full-time archaeological monitoring program during
removal of all existing landscape and hadscape, including the initial stages of site
grading or excavation per the following requirements:
a. Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the applicant shall. provide a
letter of verification to the Planning and Building Department stating that a qualified
archaeologist and/or archaeological monitor, as defined in the city's guidelines, have
been retained to implement the monitoring program. The requirements for
archaeological monitoring shall be noted on the grading plans ,under the heading
"Environmental Requirements." All persons involved in the archaeological
monitoring of this project shall be approved by the Planning and Building
Department prior to the first pre-construction meeting. The applicant shall notify the
Planning and Building Department of the start and end of construction.
b. The qualified archaeologist shall attend any pre-construction meeting to make
comments and/or suggestions concerning the archaeological monitoring program
with the construction manager.
c. The qualified archaeologist. or archaeological monitor shall be present on-site full-
time during grading activity.
d. When requested by the archaeologist, the project coordinator shall divert, direct or
temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery to allow
evaluation of potentially significant historical resources. The archaeologist shall
immediately notify Planning and Building Department staff of such finding at the
time of discovery. The significance of the discovered resource(s) shall be determined
by the archaeologist, in consultation with the Planning and Building Department and
Native American community. The Planning and Building Director must concur with
the evaluation procedures before grading activities in the area of discovery are
allowed to resume. Any human bones of Native American origin shall be turned over
to the appropriate Native American group for reburial.
e. If any human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. In the
event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most
Likely Descendent, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, shall
be contacted in order to determine the proper treatment and disposition of the
remains.
f. All historical materials collected shall be cleaned, cataloged and permanently curated
with an appropriate institution. All artifacts shall be analyzed to identify function and
July 23, 2008 Page 22
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
chronology as they relate to the history of the area. Faunal material shall be
identified as to species, and specialty studies shall be completed as appropriate.
Additionally, any sites and/or features encountered during the monitoring program
shall be recorded on the applicable Department of Parks and Recreation forms (DPR
523A/B, et al.) and submitted to the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University and the San Diego Museum of Man with the final monitoring results
report.
g. Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring results report and/or evaluation
report, if appropriate, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the
entire historical monitoring program (with appropriate graphics and photo
documentation) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building
Director. For significant historical resources, a Research, Design and Data Recovery
Program shall be included as part of the evaluation report. A mitigation report for
significant historical resources, if required, shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning and Building Department Director prior to the release of the grading bond.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential historical resources-related impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public
Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
archaeological and historical resources-related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 43 -A.1 would ensure that an archaeological mitigation and
monitoring program is undertaken to fully document and evaluate any historic resources identified on
the site during project grading activities.
3.2.2 Archaeological Resources
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
The project could result in direct impacts from the uncovering of significant archaeological resources
during project grading activities.
Mitigation Measures
4.3-13.1 Mitigation Measure 4.3-A.1 shall apply.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential archaeological resources-related impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public
Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
archaeological and historical resources-related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
July 23, 2008 Page 23
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-A.1 would ensure that an archaeological mitigation and
monitoring program is undertaken to fully document and evaluate any archaeological resources
identified on the site during project grading activities.
3.2.3 Buried Human Remains
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
The project has the potential to uncover significant archaeological resources during project grading
activities, including the potential for uncovering human remains interred outside of a formal
cemetery.
B. Mitigation Measures
4.3-C.1 Mitigation Measure 4.3-A.1 shall apply.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential archaeological resources-related impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public
Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant
archaeological resources-related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-A.1 would ensure that any human remains uncovered
during construction of the proposed project, along with cultural items on or near the site of their
discovery, are treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity, in accordance with the requirements
of Public Resources Code §5097.98 (a) and (b).
3.3 Geology/Soils
3.3.1 Seismic Ground Shaking Hazards
A. Description of Potentially Sianificant Effect
The proposed project site is subject to ground shaking from seismic events, which could result in
seismically-induced ground failure (i.e., liquefaction). Accordingly, implementation of the project
would expose people and structures to adverse effects due to ground shaking which. could result in
liquefaction hazards.
B. Mitigation Measures
4.4-A.1 The Geotechnical Engineer's foundation and site preparation recommendations contained
in the "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Batiquitos Bluffs
Residential Development" (Christian Wheeler Engineering, June 20, 2005) shall be
incorporated into the project design.
4.4-B.1 Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 shall apply.
July 23, 2008 Page 24
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
4.4-13.2 The design and construction of structures and facilities on the site shall be required to
adhere to the standards and requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC, Title 24)
and other professional engineering standards appropriate for Seismic Zone 4. The
following UBC factors shall be used for seismic design: seismic zone factor of 0.40, a
soil profile type of SE, a near source Factor Na of 1.0, a near source factor N,, of 1.05, a
seismic coefficient Ca of 0.36 and a seismic coefficient C, of 0.93.
C. Fin_ ding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and will reduce the
potential geology/soils related impacts of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant hazardous materials-
related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 would ensure that risks associated with seismically-
induced liquefaction would be minimized by requiring compliance with the foundation and site
preparation recommendations contained in the project's geotechnical report, which include, but are
not limited to, requirements for supporting the proposed structures on post-tension slab/foundation
systems, the removal of the uppermost portions of the slopewash and alluvial deposits on-site, and
the construction of a mat of uniformly compacted, structural fill beneath those portions of the site to
be developed.
Compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code ` and the project-specific
geotechnical report, as required by Mitigation Measures 4.4-13.1 and 4.4-13.2, would ensure that
measures are incorporated into the design of the project which would preclude significant impacts
due to proximal seismic events. Measures which shall be incorporated into the design of the project
would include, but not be limited to, remedial grading. and special foundation design.
3.3.2 Unstable Soils
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
The project site contains soils that are subject to lateral spreading, particularly during a seismic event.
Accordingly, implementation of the project could expose people and structures to adverse effects due
to lateral spreading.
B. Mitigation Measures
4.4-C.1 Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 shall apply.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential geology/soils related impact of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or
July 23, 2008 Page 25
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant hazardous materials-
related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 would ensure that the project would adhere to the
recommendations contained in the project's geotechnical report and provide for an acceptable life-
safety performance level for the proposed site improvements, which would preclude potential
adverse effects associated with lateral spreading.
3.3.3 Ground Subsidence
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
The project site exhibits the potential for liquefaction induced settlements (i.e., ground subsidence).
B. Mitigation Measures
4.4-D.1 Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 shall apply.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential geology/soils related impact of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant hazardous materials-
related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-13.1 would ensure that the project complies with the
recommendations made in the project's geotechnical report, including recommendations pertaining to
foundation and site preparation, which would preclude potential impacts due to ground subsidence.
3.3.4 Expansive Soils
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
Portions of the development area contain expansive soils. The presence of expansive soils represents
an unstable soil condition that could result in property risk.
B; Mitigation Measures
4.4-E.1 Mitigation Measure 4.4-A.1 shall apply.
C. Findin
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential geology/soils related impact of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or, alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant hazardous materials-
related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
July 23, 2008 Page 26
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-E.1 would ensure project compliance with the
recommendations made in the project's geotechnical report, including recommendations pertaining to
remedial grading (removal and recompaction), which would preclude potential impacts due to
expansive soils.
3.4 Noise
3.4.1 Interior Noise
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
Implementation of the project has the potential to expose on-site residences to interior noise levels in
excess of permitted standards established in the General Plan Noise. Element and the California
Administrative Code (CCR Title 24) due to future traffic activity along La Costa Avenue.
B. Mitigation Measures
4.7-A.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, an interior noise analysis shall be prepared to
identify specific noise attenuation measures (e.g., specialized door and window
treatments) that shall be depicted on the building plans. The interior noise analysis shall
demonstrate that incorporation of the proposed noise attenuation measures will attenuate
interior noise levels to a level below 45 dBA CNEL.
C. Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is. feasible and will reduce the
potential interior noise-related impacts of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant noise-related impacts
of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-A.1 would ensure that interior noise levels on-site would
not exceed the maximum indoor noise levels permitted by the General Plan Noise Element and CCR
Title 24 (i.e., 45 dBA CNEL). Thus, no significant impact would occur.
3.5 Aesthetics
3.5.1 Natural Topography
A. Description of Potentially Significant Effect
implementation of the proposed project would require clearing and thinning of native vegetation on-
site due to required fuel modification. The clearing and thinning of native vegetation would modify
ground surface relief features on-site and would adversely impact the existing visual character of the
project site.
July 23, 2008 Page 27
Batiquitos Bluffs
- (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
B. Mitiaation Measures
4.8-A.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, project landscape plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Building Department and the Fire Department. The review
of proposed landscape plans by the Planning and Building Department and Fire
Department shall ensure that all fuel modification areas are planted with native, drought-
tolerant, low-fuel and fire-resistive plant material.
C. Findin
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and will reduce the
potential aesthetics related impact of the project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant hazardous materials-
related impacts of the project as identified in the Final EIR.
D. Rationale for Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-A.1 ensures that fuel modification area on-site would be
planted using a plant palette comprised of native vegetation that would be visually consistent with
existing vegetation on-site.
July 23, 2008 Page 28
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
4.0 Findings on Less than Significant Impacts
4.1 Effects Determined to be Less than Significant
The Planning Commission finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record and as
documented in the project's EIR (Section 4.0), the following impacts associated with the project are
less than significant and no mitigation measures are required:
Environmental Issue
Less than Significant Impact
Aesthetics
. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss,
covering, or modification of unique physical features such as a natural
canyon of hillside slope;
. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the
visual quality of the area, particularly with respect to views from public
viewing areas, vistas or open space;
. The proposed project would not be incompatible with surrounding
development in terms of bulk, scale, materials and style; and
. Implementation of the project would not result in the emission of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area.
Air Quality
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure
of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
. The project would not involve grading that results in the creation of
substantial amounts of particulate matter 10 (dust); and
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial
negative effect on the ability of the. Regional Air Quality Strategy to
meet the federal and state clean air standards, and would not conflict
with the implementation of other regional air quality plans.
Biological Resources
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state conservation plan; and
. Implementation of the project would not substantially interfere with the
movement offish or wildlife, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
Cultural Resources
• The proposed project would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area; and
. Implementation of the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature.
Geology and Soils • Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
exposure of future project residents or structures to potential adverse
effects involving, tsunami, seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard;
July 23, 2008 Page 29
Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
Environmental Issue Less than Significant Impact
Geology and Soils Implementation of the proposed project would not thane topography
(cont.) g or ground surface relief features;
• Implementation of the project would not result in grading that affects or
negates subsurface sewage disposal systems; and
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Hazards and • Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure
Hazardous Materials of project residents or the public to potential adverse effects involving
transport, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials;
• Implementation of the project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan;
• The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of a school,
and would have no potential for emitting hazardous emissions within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; and
• The proposed project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section
65962.5.
Hydrology/ Water Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the
Quality existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
• The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the depletion
of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the creation
or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial
additional sources ofpolluted runofif;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure
of future project residents or structures to potential. adverse effects
involving a 100-year food hazard area;
• Implementation of the project would not result in a substantial
degradation of water quality;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
• The proposed project would not create changes in the absorption rates
or the rate and amount of surface runofif;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure
July 23, 2008 Page 30
Batiquitos Bluffs
` (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
Environmental Issue Less than Significant Impact
Hydrology/ Water of future project residents or structures to potential adverse effects
Quality (cont.) involving an area exposed to hazards associated with the failure of a
levee or dam; and
• Implementation of the project would not result in changes in the amount
of surface water in any water body.
Land Use and Planning • Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an area;
• Implementation of the project would not affect land use within a city
sphere of influence and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries;
• The proposed project would be consistent with the site's zoning
designation;
• The proposed project would be compatible with existing and planned
land uses in the surrounding area; and
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the physical
division of an established community.
Noise • Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity;
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
exposure of noise sensitive land uses to temporary or periodic increases
in ambient noise levels; and
• Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an exposure
to potential adverse effects involving groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise.
July 23, 2008 Page 31
Batiquitos Bluffs
- ` (TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR contains an analysis of
alternatives to the proposed project. A total of five alternatives to the proposed project were
identified, and each of the five alternatives was evaluated at an equal level of detail. Based on
information contained in the Final EIR and the administrative record, the Planning Commission finds
that adoption and implementation of the 20-foot Access Alternative is the most desirable, feasible,
and appropriate action and the Planning Commission rejects the proposed project and other
alternatives as either less desirable or infeasible based on consideration of the relevant factors
identified herein. A summary of each alternative and its relative characteristics, and documentation
of the Planning Commission's findings in support of or rejecting the alternative are provided below.
5.1 Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA, Section 2.3 of the EIR provides project objectives that are used to
evaluate a range of reasonable project alternatives, which are provided in Section 7.0 of the EIR.
These objectives are provided as follows:
• Establish a development program for the 47.81-acre site that provides an appropriate balance
of residential and open space land uses in a manner that is consistent with the City of
Encinitas General Plan's land use designation of "Rural Residential (RR-1)."
• Provide for the permanent conservation of sensitive environmental resources on the site,
including areas containing steep slopes and sensitive biological resources, by clustering the
proposed residential land uses on the portions of the site where impacts to these resources
would be minimized.
• Establish a development plan for the 47.81-acre site which complies with the requirements of
the City of Encinitas Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subarea Plan.
• Provide plans for site design and landscaping that are consistent with the requirements of the
City of Encinitas Design Review Guidelines and that create an attractive, resident-friendly
neighborhood that is compatible with the surrounding community.
• Plan and construct capital improvements for water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities, as
appropriate, to provide adequate services to the project.
• Provide for circulation improvements as necessary to ensure the safe and efficient movement
of vehicles to and from the project site.
July 23, 2008 Page 32
_ Batiquitos Bluffs
(TM 05-157, MUP 05-157, DR 05-157, and CDP 05-157)
CEQA Findings of Fact
5.2 Project Alternatives
The EIR evaluated five development alternatives, which consist of the following:
1) No Development Alternative
2) 20-Foot Access Alternative
3) 32-Foot Access Alternative
4) Large 4-Lot Alternative
5) Environmentally Superior Alternative
The EIR considered and rejected alternative site locations. No alternative sites were identified as
reasonable alternatives under the provisions of CEQA because the project seeks to implement
existing land use and zoning designations on a site that is in a fixed location. The policy decision on
the appropriate land use for the site (i.e., residential) already has been made and has been
incorporated into the General Plan Land Use Element. Thus, even if an alternative site were to be
identified, the proposed project site would remain zoned for residential use and development of the
site could eventually occur by others.
5.2.1 No Development Alternative
A. Alternative Description
Under the No Development Alternative, the land uses proposed by the project would not be
implemented and the project site would remain vacant for the foreseeable future. When compared to
the proposed project and 20-Foot Access Alternative, the No Development Alternative would avoid
significant impacts associated with land use/planning, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, noise, and aesthetics.
B. Findin
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3), the Planning Commission finds that specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the No Development Alternative
identified in the Final EIR and rejects the No Development Alternative on such grounds.
C. Rationale for Finding
Under this alternative, all significant environmental impacts associated with the project and 20-Foot
Access Alternative, as identified in the Final EIR, would be eliminated. However, the No
Development Alternative would not develop the residential subdivision on the site and, therefore,
would not meet any of the project objectives.
5.2.2 20-Foot Access Alternative
A. Alternative Description
Under the 20-Foot Access Alternative, the access road into the project site would be constructed at a
width of 20 feet, in lieu of the 40-foot access road proposed by the project. This alternative would
develop the site with 19 single-family residential lots on approximately 6.9 acres at a maximum
density of 2.8du/acre. On-site roadways would comprise 2.2 acres and approximately 37.4 acres of
the site would be dedicated as natural open space.
July 23, 2008 Page 33